State Rep. Scott Pelath addresses the Indiana House in this Indiana Democratic Party photo.

Indiana House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, announced Nov. 19, 2017, that he will not seek an 11th 2-year term as 9th District state representative in 2018. He has also stepped down as Democratic minority leader, effective immediately.

Pelath told House Democrats in an email that his decision is based in part on his desire to spend more time with his family. He and his wife, Laura, recently welcomed a baby boy named Leo.

“Immediately after the past election, I confided to many of you that I was not going to do this forever. And after several months of repressed doubts, soul-searching, and discussions with my family, that time has come — as it does for most of us,” Pelath said in the email. “I have always viewed the position of leader as pure service, not one of grandiosity or ambition.”

Pelath will finish his current term as state representative.

He was first elected to represent the 9th District in 1998. He made a mark in the Legislature as a procedural expert guiding the flow of legislation, and through his service on the House Ways and Means Committee, where he was instrumental in overseeing funding for countless state priorities.

In 2012, he was elected House Democratic Leader by his colleagues.

His legislative highlights include passage of the Great Lakes Water Use Compact, which helps protect the water in every state and Canadian province that borders the Great Lakes.

During the past session, Pelath was instrumental in passage of legislation designed to enhance economic opportunities along the South Shore Line in Northwest Indiana.

He works as a human resources director at the Swanson Center in Michigan City.

In addition to his son, Pelath has two daughters, Israel and Isabella, and a stepson named Enzo.

Pelath received a Bachelor of Science degree in public affairs from Indiana University in 1992 and served as an aide to U.S. Rep. Tim Roemer from 1992 to 1997.

He served as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve. He is a graduate of the Indiana University ROTC program and the Armor Officer Basic Course at Fort Knox, Ky. He is a member of the American Legion.

Listen to an audio clip of Pelath addressing the media Nov. 20 by clicking on this link:

Commander Joseph Scott (left) and Lt. John McCauley (right) pose with a local Navy veteran.

Ray Shearer (2nd from left), chairman of the commissioning committee for the USS Indiana, talks about the progress of the submarine. Also pictured are Navy representatives Commander Joseph Scott (center) and Lt. John McCauley (right).

Ray Shearer (left), chairman of the commissioning committee for the USS Indiana, listens as Navy Commander Joseph Scott (center) discusses the USS Indiana. Also pictured is Lt. John McCauley (right).

U.S. Navy Lt. John McCauley (left) and Commander Joseph Scott (right) pose with LaPorte City firefighters.

U.S. Navy Lt. John McCauley (left) and Commander Joseph Scott (right) chat with local residents.

Ray Shearer, chairman of the commissioning committee for the USS Indiana, holds the official USS Indiana cap. Flanking Shearer are Commander Joseph Scott (left) and Lt. John McCauley (right).

(Above and below photos:) A model of the USS Indiana sits outside the Blue Heron.

WNLP story and photos by Bob Wellinski

(Click on photos to enlarge)

Short notice due to their schedule meant the welcome committee was small, but crew members of the under-construction USS Indiana submarine still provided fascinating information during their visit to LaPorte Nov. 9, 2017.

The new Virginia Class Fast Attack sub, which is about 95% complete, is scheduled to be commissioned next year, according to Ray Shearer, chairman of the commissioning committee for USS Indiana. Shearer was joined by Commander Joseph Scott, human resources officer, and Lt. John McCauley, operations officer, at the LaPorte event at Blue Heron Inn. Scott and McCauley are both from Great Lakes Naval Installation.

The USS Indiana will be the first sub bearing the Indiana name. It will also be the fourth vessel named Indiana and the third commissioned ship. The first ship to take on the Indiana name was a battleship that served during the Spanish American War. Indiana’s own President Benjamin Harrison signed the authorization to create the battleship’s program. The second battleship was under construction in the 1920s. It was 40% complete when it was scrapped due to treaty obligations. One barrel from the main gunnery is on display in the Naval Yard in Washington, D.C. Most recently, the Battleship Indiana BB-58 was built starting in 1939, commissioned in 1942 and decommissioned in 1947. It served in every major Pacific engagement during World War II and was awarded 9 battle stars.

“So now, you think 75 years later it is literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be part of something like this,” Shearer told those present.

Commander Scott explained that the USS Indiana is “the 16th Virginia class sub with brand new, state-of-the-art technology; a phenomenal warcraft all the way around.

“When the USS Indiana commissions next year, it will be the most technologically advanced, stealthiest … fastest vessel on the planet.”

The SSN 789 will be 7,800-tons and 377 feet in length, have a beam of 34 feet and operate at more than 25 knots (about 29 mph) submerged. It is designed with a reactor plant that will not require refueling during the planned life of the ship, reducing lifecycle costs while increasing underway time.

The future USS Indiana, with an estimated crew of approximately 135, will have the capability to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert, long-term surveillance of land area, waters near shorelines or other sea-based forces. Other missions include anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, mine delivery and minefield mapping. It is also designed for Special Forces delivery and support.

Commander Scott explained that the USS Indiana crew, which will include sailors from Indiana, is being built the same time as the ship is being built. “It’s essential that they work alongside the shipyard engineers; they need to know these systems inside and out,” Shearer said. He added, “They can’t pick up the phone when they’re out to sea for tech support. They have to know every possible scenario when they go out for sea trial.” For quality assurance, some shipyard workers as well as the shipyard president and the ship’s admiral will be on board the sub first trip.

But Indiana sailors won’t be the only representatives the Hoosier state will have aboard the new sub. Shearer noted that so far they have found there are over 100 Indiana businesses manufacturing components for the sub program. “But this one (the USS Indiana) is special because it’s Hoosier hands that are building that Hoosier boat.” Some of the parts mentioned are the reactor vessel made in Mt. Vernon; the backup diesel generator made in Lafayette at the Cat plant; a special reactor spring made at Hoosier Spring in South Bend; steel from the region’s steel mills — and more local businesses: A and A Sheet Metal and Thermco are contributing to USS Indiana.

Shearer joked, “… lots of Hoosier parts. If the Navy would let us, we’d stamp ‘Made in Indiana’ all over that sub.”

People can stay up to date on the USS Indiana’s progress by visiting USS Indiana on Facebook or its website, USSIndiana.org.

]]>http://whatsnewlaporte.com/2017/11/12/laporteans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-new-uss-indiana-submarine-crew/feed/0Indiana Supreme Court suspends law license of ex-LP chief deputy prosecutor Neary for at least 4 yearshttp://whatsnewlaporte.com/2017/11/06/indiana-supreme-court-suspends-law-license-of-ex-lp-chief-deputy-prosecutor-neary-for-at-least-4-years/
http://whatsnewlaporte.com/2017/11/06/indiana-supreme-court-suspends-law-license-of-ex-lp-chief-deputy-prosecutor-neary-for-at-least-4-years/#respondTue, 07 Nov 2017 04:13:30 +0000http://whatsnewlaporte.com/?p=83063WNLP EDITOR’S NOTE: The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended former LaPorte County chief deputy prosecutor Robert Neary’s license to practice law for four years for his role of eavesdropping in two cases between 2012-14. The court handed down its unanimous decision Nov. 6, 2017. “We described the … eavesdropping using words such as ‘egregious,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘unconscionable,’ ‘shameful,’ ‘abhorrent,’ and ‘reprehensible,’” the justices noted in their ruling. The court added that reinstatement will not be automatic at the end of the four-year suspension. Below is the transcript released following the court’s Nov. 6 ruling:

In the Indiana Supreme Court

No. 46S00-1512-DI-705

IN THE MATTER OF: ROBERT NEARY, Respondent.

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer Sheila M. Moss.

November 6, 2017

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, Robert Neary, committed attorney misconduct by, among other things, eavesdropping on confidential attorney-client communications. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended for at least four years without automatic reinstatement.

This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action,” and on the post-hearing briefing by the parties. Respondent’s 1999 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.

Procedural Background and Facts

The Commission filed a two-count “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” on December 17, 2015, and later amended that complaint. As set out more fully below, the amended complaint charged Respondent with professional misconduct in connection with his actions in two criminal cases while serving as the chief deputy prosecutor in LaPorte County. Following a hearing, the hearing officer filed her report on April 28, 2017, finding Respondent committed violations as charged and recommending a sanction ranging from a four-year suspension to disbarment.

Count 1. On Friday, March 14, 2014, Brian Taylor was being held in custody at the Michigan City Police Department in connection with a homicide investigation. Attorney David Payne arrived at the station mid-afternoon to meet with Taylor, and Respondent was summoned to the station by the police chief to assist with any issues that might arise. Respondent and detectives escorted Payne to the interview room to meet with Taylor, a detective instructed Payne to flip a toggle switch outside the room “unless you want us listening to your conversation,” and Payne did so. However, the switch merely controlled the recording system and did not disable the audio and video feeds, which were controlled in a separate area in the police station referred to as the “war room.”

After Payne began his meeting with Taylor, Respondent and several detectives gathered in the war room. They did not disable the audio or video feeds, but rather watched and listened to the confidential attorney-client discussion. Ten to twenty minutes into the interview, Taylor and Payne discussed a gun allegedly used in the incident under investigation, and Taylor told Payne where the gun was located. A few minutes after that, the audio in the war room was disabled, the room was cleared, and Respondent instructed the detectives not to recover the weapon. Notwithstanding Respondent’s instruction, two detectives proceeded to the site identified by Taylor during his conversation with Payne and recovered a gun. Respondent did not initially notify Payne of what had transpired.

Three days after Payne’s meeting with Taylor, when the police chief learned of the overheard conversation and the subsequent recovery of a gun, the police chief emphasized to Respondent the importance of sharing that information with Taylor’s counsel. Respondent then notified counsel of what had happened and self-reported his conduct to the Commission shortly thereafter.1

Count 2. On December 13, 2012, John Larkin was being held at the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) in connection with the shooting death of his wife. Larkin had agreed to give a statement to investigators in exchange for being charged with voluntary manslaughter in lieu of murder. Present for this interview were Larkin, Larkin’s counsel, Respondent, LaPorte County Prosecutor Robert Szilagyi, and the LBPD officer who conducted the interview. The interview room was monitored by an audio and video feed sent to a control room elsewhere in the police station.

About an hour into the interview, the participants took a short break lasting approximately eleven minutes. Larkin and his counsel remained in the interview room after the others had left. Based on past practices, Szilagyi and Larkin’s counsel both believed the LBPD officer in the control room would turn off the recording during the break. However, the recording system was not turned off and continued to record while Larkin spoke with his counsel during the break about several confidential matters, including defense strategy (hereinafter the “break discussion”).

Respondent first viewed the DVD of the interview, including the break discussion, about one month later. Respondent watched the entire break discussion even though the privileged status of that discussion either was, or should have been, immediately apparent to Respondent.Respondent provided a copy of the DVD, including the break discussion, to Larkin’s counsel but did not mention to counsel that the break discussion had been recorded.

Thereafter, Larkin’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the voluntary manslaughter charge based on the recording of the break discussion. Respondent filed an unsealed response in which he recited the contents of the break discussion, and he attached as exhibits the DVD and a written transcript, both of which included the break discussion. The trial court ordered the transcript and all relevant information be placed under seal and instructed Respondent to resubmit his filing on green paper excluded from public access.2

Discussion

The Commission alleged, and the hearing officer concluded following an evidentiary hearing, that Respondent violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct:

4.4(a): Using methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of a third person (Count 1).

8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Counts 1 and 2).

Respondent has petitioned this Court to review the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions. 3 The Commission carries the burden of proof to demonstrate attorney misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. See Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(14)(i) (2016). We review de novo all matters presented to the Court, including review not only of the hearing officer’s report but also of the entire record. See Matter of Wall, 73 N.E.3d 170, 172 (Ind. 2017). While this Court reserves the right to make the ultimate determination, the hearing officer’s findings receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. Id.

Respondent correctly argues that the appellate holdings in Taylor, Larkin I, and Larkin II are not dispositive of this disciplinary action. See Matter of Keiffner, 79 N.E.3d 903, 906 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Matter of Smith, 60 N.E.3d 1034, 1036 (Ind. 2016)). The relevant inquiries in a criminal appeal and disciplinary proceeding are not wholly coextensive, a prosecutor individually does not have the opportunity in a criminal appeal to defend his or her own professional conduct, and extrinsic evidence may be brought to bear in a disciplinary proceeding that paints a “more complete picture” of the prosecutor’s conduct than what was reflected in the record available to the appellate court. Id. Respondent points to such extrinsic evidence here – chiefly, his own testimony and that of several of the detectives who participated in the war room eavesdropping – and he argues that, like the respondent attorneys in Smith and Keiffner, he too should be absolved of professional misconduct charges.

However, our dispositions in Smith and Keiffner were predicated in large part on credibility findings favorable to the respondent made by the hearing officer in each case and the emphasis we give such findings. In contrast, the hearing officer who heard the testimony here made comprehensive and well-reasoned credibility findings against Respondent, whose version of events has evolved considerably since his initial self-report to the Commission, and against the detectives who chose to testify here but who had refused to testify about the eavesdropping during the suppression proceedings at issue in Taylor. We find in our de novo review ample support for the hearing officer’s findings in this regard.

Respondent also argues that there was insufficient prejudice caused by his actions to support a Rule 8.4(d) violation. To be sure, the full scope of damage caused by Respondent’s actions and the misdeeds of other law enforcement officials remains to be seen. As of this writing, proceedings in the trial court are ongoing following our remand in Taylor and a petition to transfer is pending in Larkin II. But Respondent’s conduct easily meets the threshold for prejudice under Rule 8.4(d) irrespective of the ultimate outcomes in the prosecutions of Taylor and Larkin. Respondent’s conduct in both cases fundamentally infringed on privileged attorney- client communications and, at an absolute minimum, has caused significant delays and evidentiary hurdles in the prosecutions of Taylor and Larkin, even assuming they still can be prosecuted at all. Respondent’s attempts to downplay the seriousness of his invasion of the attorney-client privilege – for example, by claiming he was not paying close attention to the Taylor-Payne conversation until the gun was mentioned, or by noting the proactive measures undertaken sua sponte by the trial court to shield Respondent’s filings in response to Larkin’s motion to dismiss from public access – are wholly unavailing.

In sum, we find sufficient support for the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions with regard to each of the charged rule violations. Accordingly, we find Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 4.4(a) in Count 1 and Rule 8.4(d) in both counts. We turn now to the question of sanction.

There is, quite thankfully, scant precedent in our disciplinary annals for misconduct such as this. As we wrote in Taylor, the constitutional imperative of honoring and protecting the confidentiality of a defendant’s communications with counsel is a principle “[w]e would have hoped . . . too obvious to mention.” Id. at 1023. We described the war room eavesdropping in Taylor using words such as “egregious,” “flagrant,” “unconscionable,” “shameful,” “abhorrent,” and “reprehensible.” While Smith and Keiffner confirm that these descriptions are not dispositive in the disciplinary context, nothing in the “more complete picture” adduced during these disciplinary proceedings leads us to view Respondent’s conduct with any less outrage or disapproval. In many respects, these proceedings have painted an even more alarming picture of Respondent, in that they show Respondent gradually has retreated from his initial self-report to the Commission and has given evasive and inconsistent explanations and statements regarding the war room eavesdropping. As aptly found by the hearing officer, “Respondent’s ever evolving narrative points to a lack of honesty.” (Report at 15).

We share the hearing officer’s view that “the egregious nature of Respondent’s conduct cannot be overstated” and warrants a sanction at the upper end of the disciplinary spectrum. (Id. at 21-22). The Commission urges us to disbar Respondent. The severity of the misconduct and Respondent’s repeated transgressions certainly lend support to the notion that he should be disbarred. On the other hand, Respondent has no prior discipline, he self-reported his conduct to the Commission, and several persons testified to his good reputation in the community (although, as noted by the hearing officer, these persons did not appear to have been particularly well-informed of the circumstances giving rise to these disciplinary proceedings). At the end of the day, these considerations persuade us that the door should not permanently be closed on Respondent’s legal career and that he should be afforded an opportunity at an appropriate juncture to prove by clear and convincing evidence his professional rehabilitation and fitness to resume practicing law.

Conclusion

The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rules 4.4(a) and 8.4(d). For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than four years, without automatic reinstatement, beginning December 18, 2017. Respondent shall not undertake any new legal matters between service of this opinion and the effective date of the suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.

State and local authorities are warning residents of PCBs found in fish from LaPorte’s Clear Lake (pictured; WNLP photo)

Press release issued 10/31/17:

The LaPorte County Health Department, in conjunction with the City of LaPorte and the Indiana State Department of Health, is notifying residents of a preliminary Fish Consumption Advisory for Clear Lake.

Fish tissue samples collected from Clear Lake by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management indicate the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish at this location. The historic source of the contamination has not been determined.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Regarding the PCB source, LaPorte Park Superintendent Mark Schreiber further told WNLP that “As we understand it, at this time, it is impossible for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to determine the exact source of PCBs in Clear Lake. Before they were banned, PCBs were used for insulating electrical parts, lubricating machine parts, paints and much more. Considering the history of land use within Clear Lake’s watershed, there are many potential historical sources of PCBs.”)

The United States banned the manufacture of PCBs in 1977 because of potential health effects associated with exposure as seen in laboratory animals. PCBs accumulate in fat and organs of the animals that take these chemicals in. Fish can absorb PCBs in lake sediment, creating health concerns for people who frequently consume the fish caught from Clear Lake over a long period of time.

The Indiana State Department of Health has notified LaPorte officials that the preliminary fish consumption advisory for Clear Lake will be in place until more samples can be collected and analyzed. The state health department recommends that consumption of fish from Clear Lake be limited to no more than one meal per month by all populations. Exceptions to this general advice are:

— Do not eat common carp.

— Largemouth bass consumption for all legal sizes should be limited to no more than 6 meals per year.

Hoosiers can reduce their exposure to PCBs in fish by preparing the fish as a skin-off fillet, removing the fatty portions and other organs where PCBs can accumulate, broiling the meat instead of pan frying so the fat drips away, and choosing smaller, younger fish over older, larger fish.

For a complete list of fish consumption advisories in Indiana, refer to the Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory website, http://www.in.gov/isdh/23650.htm. Purdue University offers a fish consumption wallet card to provide guidance for women and children regarding consumption of restaurant or store-bought fish.

Periodic redistricting is a key element of helping to assure equity and vitality of our electoral process. Every 10 years after the completion of our decennial by the U.S. Census, boundaries for electoral and

Morris

political districts are realigned. That process is called redistricting. The purpose is to equalize the number of people in each district in order to uphold our constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.” The Indiana General Assembly is in charge of redistricting for both congressional and state legislative seats.

The concept of redistricting is very simple and clear, but the execution of it is not. There is a long-standing practice that many feel has undermined the logic and equity of redistricting. It’s called Gerrymandering, a process by which the political party in power gains special advantage over the opposition party by manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts.

In 2015, the Indiana General Assembly created a study committee of legislators and citizens to spend 15 months studying how other states handle redistricting and to propose reforms for Indiana. The League of Women Voters in Indiana and Common Cause Indiana formed a coalition to support the effort. Earlier this year, the study committee issued its recommendations. They supported the establishment of a nine-member, bipartisan redistricting commission, with the members appointed by the legislative leadership. Recommendations of the commission would require an affirmative vote of at least six of the nine members and would be subject to approval by the General Assembly.

The study committee’s recommendations were incorporated in House Bill 1014 and a hearing was held by the Elections and Apportionment Committee on Feb. 15, 2017. Over 300 people attended the hearing and there was 90 minutes of testimony, all in favor of reform, except for one lone individual, who testified in support of the status quo. Incredibly, the committee chairman refused to call for a vote and the bill died.

As the plans for the 2018 session of the General Assembly are developed, it seems imperative that a way is found to gain support for non-partisan, citizen-led redistricting in Indiana along the lines of the proposal by the study committee. Here’s why:

The Indiana Bicentennial Visioning Project led by the distinguished bipartisan team of former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former Lt. Governor Sue Ellspermann listed redistricting reform as one of our state’s top policy priorities because of its negative impact on competitive elections in the state.

In the 2014 election, 44 of the 100 seats in the Indiana House of Representatives were uncontested in the general election. That same year, Indiana had the lowest voter turnout in the country.

Landslide elections, where one party gets 60% or more of the vote, are frequently the result of districts drawn to favor one party or the other, making the votes cast for the opposing party meaningless, or “wasted.” A 2014 study published by the University of Chicago Law Review found Indiana’s state House districts to be the 5th most partisan districted in the country when the “efficiency gap” is applied. The efficiency gap is a new objective standard that can be used to measure partisan gerrymandering – it is the linchpin in the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering litigation currently being considered by the United States Supreme Court.

If you agree with the need for redistricting reform, contact your representatives in the Indiana General Assembly and let them know that the 2021 redistricting in Indiana should not be gerrymandered as it has been in the past (by both political parties). Adopting an approach such as the study committee recommended will be a huge step forward in assuring there is fair and honest redistricting that is in the best interests of all Hoosiers, not just one political party or persons already in office.

LEIGH MORRIS is former mayor of LaPorte and former chairman of the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority. He and his wife Marcia live in LaPorte.

On Monday, Oct. 30, the City of LaPorte Street Department began the annual fall leaf pickup. Crews started east of Rose Street and will work clockwise around the city on the first round of pickups. A second round of pickup is planned, weather permitting.

Leaves are to be placed in the street next to the curb. In areas with no curbing, leaves are to be placed on the tree lawn no more than 48 inches from the street.

Leaves in biodegradable bags will also be picked up. Leaves in open containers will NOT be picked up.

Leaf piles may also contain grass clippings and garden plants, but no other debris. Leaf piles containing limbs, brush, wood, trash or any other debris will NOT be picked up. Also, your leaves will not be removed if there is a vehicle parked near the pile.

Mayor Mark Krentz has appointed Thomas E. Owens as the City of LaPorte’s new police chief. Owens replaces Adam Klimczak, who recently resigned as chief but presently remains a captain with the department.

Owens has 26 years of experience with the department. He most recently served as captain of the midnight shift. During his career he has also served as a deep cover narcotics operative, chief defensive tactics instructor, narcotics detective, and SWAT Team supervisor.

Julie Smith remains assistant chief of the department.

“I have 100 percent confidence that Chief Owens will lead our department with integrity, strength and a commitment to our community,” Krentz said in a press release.

The LaPorte Traffic Commission has recommended a plan to change Clear Lake Boulevard, from Detroit Street to McClung Road, into a one-way street and add a multi-use trail for bicyclists, runners, fishermen and walkers.

The artist’s rendering above, provided by the LaPorte Redevelopment Commission’s consultant, RQAW, shows the boulevard plan (looking north from the Detroit Street end). The Detroit Street end of Clear Lake Boulevard now connects with the new roads in the NewPorte Landing development.

According to the LaPorte Park and Recreation Department: “This project was designed to both improve pavement quality and recreational access to and around Clear Lake. The landscaped buffer provides a measure of safety for pedestrians, cyclists and fishermen, as well as providing stormwater runoff filtration adjacent to Clear Lake. The reconstruction plan calls for the addition of off-road parking along the stretch, including 20 spots on the southwest corner of the lake which will ultimately serve a planned accessible fishing pier, and three spots between Furnace Street and West Street.”

The LaPorte City Council is scheduled to consider the proposal at its Oct. 2 meeting.

]]>http://whatsnewlaporte.com/2017/09/27/city-officials-present-plan-to-change-clear-lake-boulevard-into-one-way-street-with-added-recreational-trail/feed/18Opinion: Time for both taxpayers and county officeholders to make things righthttp://whatsnewlaporte.com/2017/09/26/opinion-time-for-both-taxpayers-and-county-officeholders-to-make-things-right/
http://whatsnewlaporte.com/2017/09/26/opinion-time-for-both-taxpayers-and-county-officeholders-to-make-things-right/#commentsWed, 27 Sep 2017 02:09:37 +0000http://whatsnewlaporte.com/?p=82165Once again tax sale season is upon the taxpayers of LaPorte County. Published in the Herald-Argus recently was a listing of properties being put up for sale by the County Commissioners. These properties are being auctioned off because the owner is behind in his/her taxes (rent to our elected public servants). They’re a full 8 pages, five columns wide. Yes, 8 full pages of people who could not pay their taxes in order to feed a bloated government that is out of control with spending, hiring, and regulations.

Two things come to mind when reading this list. One is that a number of the parcels have been sold over a year ago and, speaking with the new owners, they were shocked to find out that the properties are listed. They are now pulling up their closing documents and are finding that, indeed, the taxes are current. When contacting the closing companies and the local public servants, they are told, “Oh, I guess we made a mistake.” This is unacceptable. There is no excuse for this considering the number of servants these offices have on the taxpayers payroll.

The second that jumps out is the sheer number of parcels. Just like the previous sales have had. Maybe it is time the elected public servants consider the fact that the taxes are too high in our county. Every time there is an election, we hear that if elected they will help to change how our government is run and they will lower our taxes. In my observation the number of public servants steadily increases and it is the same old thing. Our government does not reform or, for that matter, shrink.

I do not know about others, but for the most part I and others I have talked to have not seen much relief, if any, in the amount of taxes we pay. This is not entirely the fault of the public servants who work for the taxpayer. They are just doing a job. The blame falls squarely on the “elected” public servants and department heads who are not held accountable by us, the taxpayers. We as taxpayers are to blame for a portion of this also, by our electing the same people and parties election after election. Maybe the tax rate and the people we elect also have something to do with our county unable to attract new businesses?

If something is not done soon we will be in the same shape as Illinois residents who can no longer enjoy the fruits of their hard work because of the tax burden being placed upon them by their elected public servants. It is true that we must pay some taxes for services that we as citizens require. We all need police protection, we all need some form of fire services and emergency first responders in case of accidents. We also need infrastructure to get from our homes to work and to conduct business. But some of the offices can be shrunk and, in some instances, eliminated, combined with others, privatized, or shared with surrounding counties.

In the coming elections of 2018 beginning with the May primaries and concluding with the general election in November, we will have the choice of either sucking it up and figuring out what we will have to do without having to pay an ever-growing government, or we can make changes that will help provide a better life and future for not only us but for our children and grandchildren. So please, when you step into the booth next time, take a moment to look at the candidate and what they stand for, not just the party affiliation behind their name. The Parties have failed us. If we have learned anything in our lives, it should be that there are alternatives available.

The parties, be they local, state or federal, no longer stand for what they once did in our parents’ time. You can be a Democrat and own a business and fight for smaller government and less regulation. Just as you can be a Republican and belong to a union and hold a blue-collar job. The time has come for major reforms in how our government functions. These reforms, needed for years, have become necessary now. It will be very difficult and painful to accomplish this. If we had elected people with guts in the past, it would not be so difficult now.

I have run for County Council twice and lost; no big deal. I have learned a lot by the losses and will use the knowledge to try and make our county better. You cannot win without first losing a time or two. One thing I did learn is how much money changes hands and the dishonesty (in my opinion) that exists. Those who have never been involved in government do not, or refuse to understand, that it is happening. So please take the time to look at new candidates for office. We already know what the status quo has given us. If they do not do what we elect them to do, then we have the chance to vote them out until they learn that as elected public servants they are elected to serve the public, not the parties.

New LaPorte Mayor Mark Krentz announced Aug. 31, 2017, that he has appointed Mitchell Feikes to the LaPorte Board of Public Works and Safety.

Krentz served on the 3-member board, a key city panel that takes care of the day-to-day operations of the city, before he was chosen as mayor by a GOP caucus earlier this month. Former Mayor Blair Milo, who resigned to take a position in Gov. Eric Holcomb’s cabinet, had appointed Krentz to the board and he was also a board of works member during Mayor Kathy Chroback’s administration.

The board’s 3 members are now Krentz, Feikes and Clay Turner, director of the LaPorte County Solid Waste District.

“With the resignation of Mayor Milo and my election to the position of mayor, there has been a need to find a new member for the board of works and safety. In seeking that person, it was important to me to find someone with deep roots in our community, along with a background in business. I find that Mitch Feikes meets these expectations and he has agreed to serve,” Krentz stated in a press release.

Feikes, born and raised in LaPorte, is owner of Mitch Feikes Builders Inc. He was a longtime LaPorte School Board member and has also served on the LaPorte Park and Recreation Board. He’s a member of LaPorte Rotary. Feikes graduated from LaPorte High School, the University of Notre Dame and Purdue University. He served in the Peace Corps in Gabon, West Africa.

“I look forward to the continued opportunity to serve the City of LaPorte,” Feikes said in the press release. “I hope my business experience will allow me to make a positive contribution in managing the city’s resources and help LaPorte progress forward.